Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Devout Muslim Sunny Islam Raped British Women as Punishment for Being Out at Night

The Qur'an allows Muslim men to rape their female captives, even captives who are married (Qur'an 4:24). Islam also teaches that "good" women are strictly obedient to men (Qur'an 4:34). Should it come as any surprise when a young Muslim man decides to rape "rebellious" non-Muslim women in order to "teach them a lesson" for refusing to submit to Islamic standards of conduct?

United Kingdom--A Muslim man who raped women to 'teach them a lesson' for being on the streets at night was jailed indefinitely today because of the danger he poses to women.

Sunny Islam, 23, who comes from a strict Muslim family, dragged his terrified victims - including a 15-year-old - from the street at knifepoint, bound and assaulted them during a two-month reign of terror.

Police fear that Islam may have attacked many more.

Three of the assaults took place close to his home in Barking, east London, while a fourth occurred in nearby Forest Gate.

Judge Patricia Lees, sentencing him to a minimum of 11 years, said: 'The harm you have done to your victims is incalculable.

'The nature and extent of these offences drives me to the conclusion that you represent an extreme and continuing danger to women, particularly those out at night.'

He was traced through the number plate of his girlfriend's car after he kidnapped and raped the 15-year-old in September 2010.

He grabbed her from behind as she walked home with a friend and bundled her into the car at knifepoint before driving to a secluded spot where he raped her twice despite her claiming she was only 11 years old.

Judge Lees said: 'You told her you were going to "teach her a lesson", and similar things were said to the other women.

'Those words are a chilling indictment of your very troubling attitude towards all of these victims.

'You seem to observe women out at night as not deserving respect or protection.

'I have no doubt that you were out that night looking for a victim, as you were on each of these occasions.' (Read more at Daily Mail.)

For more on women in Islam, see our "Women" link, as well as the following articles:

Dallas M. Roark, "Women in the Qur'an"
Samuel Green, "The Status of Women in Islam"
James M. Arlandson, "Top Ten Rules in the Qur'an That Oppress and Insult Women"

55 comments:

andy bell said...

Sunny Islam?

really?

Is there a camera behind my computer monitor? Am I being videotaped?

Because I must be on a candid camera show.

Andish said...

HAHAHA.. the religion of peace... except from genitals.

simple_truth said...

Eleven years is not enough for this abominable disgusting so-called human.

How fitting that the article mentions this: "Police fear that Islam may have attacked many more." Now, that is about as good of a double entendre, if I have ever witnessed one.

Zack_Tiang said...

Excellent... absolutely no one can say that ISLAM is not at fault of these crimes.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

What an interesting name.

11 years?

A slap on a finger.


Islam rapes women.

The irony.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@David Wood

Where does it say in 4:24, that rape is allowed. If you go to verse 23, it says

"Prohibited to you (for marriage) are:― your mothers, daughters, sisters, father's sisters, mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters, foster-mothers (who gave you suck) foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,―no prohibition if ye have not gone in,― (those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

And in verse 24, it continuous with the prohibition of marrying women already married, except those who your right hand possess. Therefore it is speaking about marriage, not rape. Now lets to through verse 24 and what it says.

" Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess. thus hath Allah ordained (prohibitions) against you: except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,― desiring chastity, not lust. Seeing that ye derive benefit from them give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, ye agree mutually (to vary it) there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-Knowing All-Wise."

As you can see it is clearly speaking about marriage with the slave women and the dower for her.

continued

Samatar Mohamed said...

And if you read verse 19 (just a few verses before), you can see that Allah (swt) prohibits men from inheriting women against their will, and to live with them in kindness and in equity.

" O ye who believe! ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower ye have given them,― except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them, it may be that ye dislike a thing and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good."

In conclusion, how does the verse in any way allow muslims to rape slaves, in the contrary it speaks of the men being allowed to marry slaves, and keep in mind that just a few verses before, the Quran clearly establishes that we cannot inherit women against their will. So much for rape being allowed in Islam.

Surah (17:81)

وَقُلۡ جَآءَ ٱلۡحَقُّ وَزَهَقَ ٱلۡبَـٰطِلُ‌ۚ إِنَّ ٱلۡبَـٰطِلَ كَانَ زَهُوقً۬ا

And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."

gabriella oak said...

Was Osama Abdullah a witness for the defence ?

David Wood said...

Samatar, are you a "Qur'an only" Muslim? If not, then you're stuck with the Hadith. And the Hadith destroy your interpretation. Of course, you know this already. So have you changed your mind about the Hadith? Do you now reject all sources apart from the Qur'an?

Andish said...

Why in the world follow the Quran when even its scholars can barely interpret the Arabic?

SGM said...

@ Samatar,

As David mentioned earlier, the hadith destroys your case which you are trying to defend.
I would like to point your attention to one point if we were to take your position that verse 23 is talking about marriage only.

Verse 4:24 states, “(23) And all married women (are forbidden? unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” The subject here is “married women”. This verse is saying that married women are forbidden, except those (captives). Except who? The married captive women. It is not saying widowed captive women, instead the word used is married, who’s husbands are still alive.

So my point is, what kind of religion is Islam that has no shame and respect for married women of other religions? What kind of god is your Allah who allows such debauchery. It is not only adultery to sleep with someone else’s wife but to take a women whom you have just captured in battle and marry her while she is still married to her first husband who is alive, it is beyond human shame.

You see, since quran is not the word of God, it is never going to stand the test of morality, scientific accuracy and logic. I know you believe that it is the word of God, but think about it, your own sources destroy your defense. And if your own sources destroy your defense, then what is left is to deny the logic and commonsense and believe what you want to believe not what is the truth. And you are entitled to believe what ever you want, this is a free country. We are just trying to show you the right path which leads to the Savior of the world, Lord Jesus Christ.

goethechosemercy said...

Quote:
So my point is, what kind of religion is Islam that has no shame and respect for married women of other religions?
end

A profane religion, a debased worship, a corrupt culture, and a futureless, dark, dreary and unreasoning worldview.
Islam is truly inhuman, fit only for the submissive animal, not for the dignified, reasoning human being.
Need I say it again?
Islam is profane.

Brigitte said...

Yes, Samatar. Sadly, for horny pious men like Sunny Islam, buying or capturing sex slaves to marry ain't so easy in 21st century UK :`(

Samatar Mohamed said...

@David wood

"Samatar, are you a "Qur'an only" Muslim? If not, then you're stuck with the Hadith. And the Hadith destroy your interpretation. Of course, you know this already. So have you changed your mind about the Hadith? Do you now reject all sources apart from the Qur'an?"

No I am not a Quran only muslim. Seeing as I have defended the hadith in many occasions. You posted that the Quran allows muslims to rape women, hence why I was defending the Quran. If you had said that the hadith allows muslims to rape women. I would ask you to provide me with one hadith where the prophet (pbuh) allowed his companions to have sex with captured slaves without their permission or consent. But then again, I have made that challenge many times, and many have failed in that regard.

CristoTeAma said...

What can you expect from a prophet like this one:

Tabari IX:137 "Allah granted Rayhanah of the [Jewish] Qurayza to His Messenger as booty [but only after she had been forced to watch him decapitate her father and brother, seen her mother hauled off to be RAPED, and her sisters sold into slavery]."

Yet some Muslims on this web will say that Muslims weren't allowed to rape.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Good Samar because I have challenge for you.

I'm ready to accept Islam but first you have to convince me.


Why should I believe a man(Muhammad) that was suicidal, depressed, thought he was insane and possessed by a demon and who admitted that Satan tricked him?


How do you know Satan is not tricking you?

How do you know you are not possessed by a demon?


I posed this challenge to Kangaroo but he's nowhere to be found he must have snuck out the back door.



I'll be waiting Samar.


Love in Jesus, thank god for sending him,

HA

CristoTeAma said...

@Samatar

You said "No I am not a Quran only muslim. Seeing as I have defended the hadith in many occasions. You posted that the Quran allows muslims to rape women, hence why I was defending the Quran. If you had said that the hadith allows muslims to rape women. I would ask you to provide me with ONE hadith where the prophet (pbuh) allowed his companions to have sex with captured slaves without their permission or consent. But then again, I have made that challenge many times, and many have failed in that regard.

Well here it comes:
Tabari IX:137 "Allah granted Rayhanah of the [Jewish] Qurayza to His Messenger as booty [but only after she had been forced to watch him decapitate her father and brother, seen her mother hauled off to be RAPED, and her sisters sold into slavery]." So you just have to join the dots and see that when the Quran says "which your right hand posses" it is talking about wheather they want it or not, meaning rape.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Hezekia

I will gladly answer your question, I do not know. All the evidence that I have come across shows me that Islam is the true religion. Whether it be logical, spiritual, experiences, etc... And as a human being who is limited and cannot see the supernatural world, I judge by what God has given me. I cannot prove to you that it is not satan who is tricking me just like you cannot prove to me that instead of the holy spirit guiding you, that it is satan who is in fact convincing you to associate partners with him. Just like men who experience visions of Jesus cannot prove to me that it wasn't satan who deceived them in the dream. And you know as well as I do that satan can deceive people in dreams as both muslims and Christians acknowledge. I am wondering though whether you are an atheist because I have never had a christian ask me this type of question. After all, we both believe in the satan even though we cannot prove to someone that satan exists because we cannot see satan in the first place. And if you are honest about thinking of becoming a muslim, I encourage you to read the Quran, authentic hadith narrations to get an understanding of Islam. I truly hope Allah (swt) will guide you, as he has guided me from associating partners with him.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@ChristoteAma

You are aware that you quoted a hadith in Tabari. When you quote Ibn Ishaq and Imam Tabari, you should proceed with caution because they gather any saying they have heard without checking the authenticity of the source. Imam Tabari said this himself.

IMAM TABARI'S STRANGE CONFESSION: [838-923 CE, 224-310 AH, Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Jarir / ibn Rustam at-Tabari]
“I am writing this book as I hear from the narrators. If anything sounds absurd, I should not be blamed or held accountable. The responsibility of all errors or blunders rests squarely on the shoulders of those who have narrated these stories to me.”

Therefore, he just put down what he heard. My challenge was for you to bring a narration with a reliable chain and no gaps. If the hadith is not proven to be reliable, then how do you expect me to accept it.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Samatar,

What don't you know?

Are you admitting that you could be possessed by a demon and tricked by Satan?


By the way you haven't answered this:

Why should I believe a man(Muhammad) that was suicidal, depressed, thought he was insane and possessed by a demon and who admitted that Satan tricked him?

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Hazekiah

With regards to suicidal thoughts and depression, here is a link.

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_prophet_muhammad_s_contemplation_of_suicide_disprove_his_prophet_hood__assuming_he_did__


With regards to the prophet (pbuh) and thinking he was possessed by a demon. It is important to note that the prophet (pbuh) lived in a time and place where if anything weird seemed to be happening to someone, people claimed it was demonic possession. Therefore, in a culture where any supernatural event led to the belief of demonic possession, it was only natural for the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to believe at first that he was possessed. But the prophet (pbuh) did identify the angel Gabriel as who was the source of his revelation, therefore, that tears your theory to shreds unless you believe Muhammad (pbuh) was not sincere. And that is a whole other discussion.

And lastly, muslims do not even accept the story of the satanic verses because it is not authentic as determined by the muslim scholars. And even if lets say it was authentic, the best part is that the prophet (pbuh) was corrected. But by whom, after all, satan does not drive out satan.

Deleting said...

Samatar,
First, the quran exerpts you quotes don't match with the situation.

Second, are you saying that we should believe mohammed because he talked to God?

Brigitte said...

Samatar, if someone decapitates you in front of your wife, and she then consents to sex with your killer, will you consider this "union" consensual?

If your unmarried daughter, captured in war, consents to sex with her captor or buyer, will you consider this act consensual and moral?

Are you so ethically challenged that you need a book to understand basic human relationships, and for characters to be clearly labelled "satan" or "god" to judge their words or actions?

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Bridgette

You are failing to consider that now that the men are killed, the women in those days unlike today are in a very tough situation without a husband. Do you expect the muslims to kill off the men after war, and just leave the women and children to suffer from poverty and starve to death. Of course not, the women would be living with the muslim companions given the rights slaves are given according to what the prophet taught ( if you need some authentic narrations let me know) along with the ability to choose whether or not they want to have sex with the men. I don't see it as rape at all.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Samatar,

The problem is you don't know if you are possessed and if Satan is tricking you. So, why should I believe anything you say?

I see you qouted the Holy bible good boy.

Maybe you should read the part where it says Satan can transform himself into an angel of light.


That's pretty devastating for your position.


I read the link that you gave me. It's kind of interesting especially the conclusion.



With the wave of a hand or as I call it waving the magic wand things become true.



Blessings.

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

.....

"
No I am not a Quran only muslim. Seeing as I have defended the hadith in many occasions. You posted that the Quran allows muslims to rape women, hence why I was defending the Quran."

Yes, you tried to defend but you also ignored points that we made that show you that implications of certain actions in fact point out the opposite of what you defended. Instead of acknowledging these points and considering them, you continue to repeat what you want to believe.

"
If you had said that the hadith allows muslims to rape women. I would ask you to provide me with one hadith where the prophet (pbuh) allowed his companions to have sex with captured slaves without their permission or consent.
"

If you want people to take both you and your religion seriously, you need to learn how to be honest, more objective, and consistent in both your methodology of reasoning and rationalization. You don't know how to concede points very well. Every now and then you do; but, you still go back to defending your position, which really cancels your concession. You can't expect others, especially non-Muslims, to have much trust in your ability to tell the truth. That is not something you should want others to believe about you.

"
But then again, I have made that challenge many times, and many have failed in that regard.
"

A large part of your reply is simply delusional. I know that you know that conquered people do not concede without compulsion. No normal human is going to allow you to capture them and take their property and accept your rule over them unless they are forced into that situation. The same goes for sexual relations and other issues that people have established moral/ethical standards for. You are so caught up in your religion that you can't see reality.

Again, the Qu'ran doesn't explicitly sanction rape; but, it has rules that allow the process to happen. You have been given examples already. Allowing female captives to be taken as property and have their rights taken from them is an open invitation to abuse and entitlement for Muslim men. Mohammad allowed sex with captive women. Captive women (the married ones) have already committed themselves to their husbands; so, why would you think that they suddenly became unfaithful to their husbands and have decided to sleep with and have sex with strangers? I know that you know in your mind and conscience that there is something irrational and immoral about such a thought. Now, confess that you know this so that we can at least credit you a with a little bit of credulity.

CristoTeAma said...

Samatar so u r saying that tabari is wrong, may i ask why? Why do u dismiss his narration when ir perfectly match with the sahih hadiths which we can easily realise that they were raping married women which later would be sold as slaves, Why do u dismiss it when it matches with what we know of history too, im spanish and we know what muslims did in the south, BTW do u accept all sahih hadiths or u dishonestly dismiss those u dont like? I really would like to know ur methodology

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Christeotama

I already answered your question. But with Imam tabari, the same method of checking authenticity of Ahadith was not applied as it was with the authentic collections of Hadith such as Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, etc... Unless you can show me any evidence that i am not aware of that the hadith you quoted in Tabari is proven authentic. Hence, why apologists like your very own Sam Shamoun and David wood would not use the hadith you use as evidence that Islam allows rape against muslim apologists ( especially Shabir Ally, Bassam Zawadi, and Sami Zaatari). It is also important to note that the scholars distinguish between sahih narrations, weak narrations, and narrations that are proven to fake. Sunni muslims like me tend to stand by sahih hadiths (even though we do admit that even the authentic narrations are not infallible seeing as it is a human effort, and humans are of course limited, unlike the Quran which we believe is the infallible Words of Allah (swt)), we stay silent on weak hadiths because it may or may not be true. And we do not accept the fake narrations. I hope I conveyed my position a bit better, and if you want scholarly information you get some scholarly books about the hadith, Also, here is a website where you can download for free several books on hadiths. Here is the link:

http://www.kalamullah.com/hadith.html

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Simple truth

"Yes, you tried to defend but you also ignored points that we made that show you that implications of certain actions in fact point out the opposite of what you defended. Instead of acknowledging these points and considering them, you continue to repeat what you want to believe."

I did not ignore your points, but i found your points insufficient and not convincing. If I had found your points convincing I would not be repeating my arguments.

"If you want people to take both you and your religion seriously, you need to learn how to be honest, more objective, and consistent in both your methodology of reasoning and rationalization. You don't know how to concede points very well. Every now and then you do; but, you still go back to defending your position, which really cancels your concession. You can't expect others, especially non-Muslims, to have much trust in your ability to tell the truth. That is not something you should want others to believe about you."

Here is where you are wrong. I have admitted to being wrong in certain instances, such as when I wrongly accused David wood for saying that the "fight" used in Surah 9:29 was not only literal but could be understood figuratively. But after digging into the historical context of the surah, i understood that the verse meant the physical fight. Have you seen me argue that point after my admission (if that is a word lol), of course not. Every point that I have admitted to being wrong about I have not brought up in defence. Also, I have never admitted to rape being allowed in Islam.

"A large part of your reply is simply delusional. I know that you know that conquered people do not concede without compulsion. No normal human is going to allow you to capture them and take their property and accept your rule over them unless they are forced into that situation"

I have spoken about that many times and will gladly speak about it again with you. If you want, bring me your strongest authentic narration proving Islam allows rape and we can dissect the hadith. This should be fun.

Zack_Tiang said...

FROM SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3371
(and Sahih al-Bukhari 4138)

Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: "O Abu Said, did you hear Allah's messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interruptus)?" He said, "Yes", and added: "We went out with Allah's messenger on the expedition to the Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl" (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: "We are doing an act whereas Allah's messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?" So we asked Allah's messenger and he said: "It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born".


So, according to you, Samatar, these Muslim men would have to marry these captured women, to be able to have sex with them (which they initially decided to do an 'al-azl' (coitus interruptus - description given above) until Muhamad said otherwise) and then sell them off as a ransom...
How does that work, Samatar?

-------

FROM SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3432

Abu Said al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran - 4:24), (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda (menstrual) period came to an end).

AND

FROM THE HADITH OF THE SUNAN OF ABU DAWUD, VOLUME 2, # 2150:

Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives IN THE PRESENCE of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Quran verse is 4:24].


Notice, it spoke nothing about WIDOWED married women... The husbands were still alive and even present.
How does consensual sex work here, Samatar?

Zack_Tiang said...

Sahih Muslim 3383 —
Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a man came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I have a slave-girl who is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise ‘azl, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed for her would come to her.


I would like to know, why (from these passages) the Muslim men are just so afraid of impregnating the slaves/captives they were having sex with, since they have to marry them before having sex with them (according to Samatar)?

-------

FROM SAHIH BUKHARI - VOLUME 5, #637:

Narrated Buraida: The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, “Don’t you see this (i.e., Ali)? When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, “O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Don’t hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumus.”


In Bukhari Volume 5 #637, it is shown that Ali had sex with one of the females before the distribution of "Khumus" occurred. This "Khumus" was 1/5 of the war booty to be used by Muhammad and his family, (Ali was Muhammad's son-in-law), and be used and distributed to the poor and needy. Here, Khalid, himself a member of Muhammad's family, took part of the Khumus prior to the distribution. That is why Buraida hated him in this case. Note that Muhammad supported Ali in this. There was no reproof at all. If anything, Muhammad thought Ali deserved more!
-Quoted from answering-islam.org/Silas/femalecaptives.htm

So how does marrying (or having consensual sex with) a captured female of a war booty, which is yet to be distributed, work, Samatar?

Zack_Tiang said...

For everyone convenience, there is an article by Mr David from over 3 years ago on sex with Captives from the Sahih literatures..

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/01/sahih-al-bukhari-and-sahih-muslim-on.html

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Zack Thiang

Your attacking strawman. Tell me where I said that muslims MUST marry slave girls before having sex with them. I said no such thing. Therefore, you are clearly misinterpreting my position. In fact, my point was that the Quran ALLOWS muslim men to marry slaves who are already married as you see in verse 24. I am at a loss as to where you got the notion that I said that muslim men must marry slaves before marriage. I said no such thing. And let me ask you a few questions if you do not mind. If you heard of a story where women were captured by a group of men after war, while their husband were killed. And the men had sex with the captured women, would you stand by the belief that they were raped without the information as to whether they consented or not. And my second question, if a slave women was forced to marry the man who captured her and they had sex, would you call it rape. I am trying to understand your position better and your answers will surely help. Thanks.

Zack_Tiang said...

Oh, so you do hold the belief Muslim men can have sex with slave women without marrying them.
I misunderstood you as holding the position that they must marry before they have sex, consensual or not (i.e. when you said, "As you can see [the verse] is clearly speaking about marriage with the slave women and the dower for her.")

I am not the one with the wrong perception of what is rape; I hold to the same view as everyone else that you are the one (along with other Muslims) with the wrong perception of rape..

You avoided one part of my comments...

"Notice, [SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3432 and SUNAN OF ABU DAWUD, VOLUME 2, # 2150] spoke nothing about WIDOWED married women... The husbands were still alive and even present.
How does consensual sex work here, Samatar?"


And another question...

How is having sex with a captured female and then selling her off for ransom a moral/ethical act?

CristoTeAma said...

@samatar: so Samatar u just dismiss the hadith y dont like just like all muslims in a very dishonest way to urself, because many schollars consider aurhentic some hadiths which other schollars reject and they all are sunni muslims, in the end i suppose it depends on what schollars YOU WANT to believe in... i suppose this guy decided to believe in the schollars who say this tabari hadith is reliable.... then we hear muslims saying christianity is wrong because there r many denominations... hipocracy at highests levels.... Samatar u need to start to be honest with urself because is ur soul what u r risking... peace .

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Chriteotama

"@samatar: so Samatar u just dismiss the hadith y dont like just like all muslims in a very dishonest way to urself, because many schollars consider aurhentic some hadiths which other schollars reject and they all are sunni muslims, in the end i suppose it depends on what schollars YOU WANT to believe in... i suppose this guy decided to believe in the schollars who say this tabari hadith is reliable.... then we hear muslims saying christianity is wrong because there r many denominations... hipocracy at highests levels.... Samatar u need to start to be honest with urself because is ur soul what u r risking... peace ."

You nailed it right on the head when you said that my soul is at risk. So let me see here, should I accept a hadith from a man who did not check the autheniticity of his sources, but just included anything that was narrated down to him, and who even warned us that if there is something absurd in his collection, that it is not his fault, but the fault of those who narrated the story to him. Or rather, should I accept a hadith from a man who checks to see if the narrations he received were authentic to the point that he would check the chain of the narration back to the living and trustworthy companions who walked and talked with the prophet (pbuh), and the man would even reject a narration if there was even the slightest of gaps in the chain. I mean, it just does not get any clearer than it already is. Unless I am a fool, I would have to go with option B. And I must say that I am somewhat shocked that you disagree with my reasoning. It is as if you do not care at all how scholars get their narrations as long as it fits your agenda.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Zack Thiang

You have not answered any of my questions that I brought to you, and in a discussion you must answer questions too you know. Ill post my two very simple questions again.

" And let me ask you a few questions if you do not mind. If you heard of a story where women were captured by a group of men after war, while their husband were killed. And the men had sex with the captured women, would you stand by the belief that they were raped without the information as to whether they consented or not. And my second question, if a slave women was forced to marry the man who captured her and they had sex, would you call it rape. "

Hopefully you answer next time.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Zack Thiang

"I am not the one with the wrong perception of what is rape; I hold to the same view as everyone else that you are the one (along with other Muslims) with the wrong perception of rape.."

So then you surely agree with me that forcing a women to marry you under compulsion (and we all know that when you marry someone you have sex) is rape. I will repeat, if lets say you force a women to marry you, and after a bit you have sexual relations with her, did you rape her. Now remember, she did not consent to marrying you in this hypothetical example, and we do not have conclusive evidence as to whether she agreed to having sex with you. Would you call this rape or no.

Zack_Tiang said...

Samatar said,
"You have not answered any of my questions that I brought to you, and in a discussion you must answer questions too you know. Ill post my two very simple questions again."

How very odd. You never answered any of the questions I posted earlier, by denying you hold such position... and yet I pointed out earlier that there was at least one question that did not require you to hold such position to answer... and yet you require me to answer your questions first?

Fine, for your sake, I shall quickly answer.

If a group of men went to war and killed some men and took their widowed wives into a forced marriage with them and then followed by sex, then yes, I would tend towards the conclusion that 1) the women did not consent (as it is the most likely/probable situation) and 2) they were raped, since rape is basically forced sex to satisfy the lust of the rapist.

Now, allow me to repeat the question I posted a lot earlier than you did again, in hope you won't avoid it any further.

"Notice, [SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3432 and SUNAN OF ABU DAWUD, VOLUME 2, # 2150] spoke nothing about WIDOWED married women... The husbands were still alive and even present.
How does consensual sex work here, Samatar?"

And also my later added question...

"How is having sex with a captured female and then selling her off for ransom a moral/ethical act?"

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Zack Thiang

Well thanks for answering the question. Now here is a passage of the Old testament where we can examine if your criteria is necessary to establish that rape occured.

Deutoronomy 21

" 10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."

So from the passage according to your criteria, this was definitely rape. Because in your criteria A group of men DID go to war and kill the men. They then captured the women, and took the women they found ATTRACTIVE, hence from your standards, she definitely would not have consented to marrying a man who just killed her husband, brother, father, etc... Next and most importantly we see that after a month of her mourning her relatives, the bible allows the men to have sexual relations with the women. It is important to note that the Bible does not say if she consents, but rather, a month for her to grieve. And not only is she raped, but she is humiliated by having her head shaved. And the bible says that you cannot sell her as a slave because ( as some translations say) you "violated" her, while other translations say because " she was married to you under compulsion".

Now lets see wheter you are consistent in your criteria, and whether you will fairly apply your criteria without the influence of you bias towards the bible.

jonnykzj said...

@Samatar Mohamed

Let me just point this out VERY CLEARLY. IN ISLAM EVERYTHING IS "HALAL", OR ALLOWED, UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWN OTHERWISE. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. In other words ANYTHING THT IS NOT EXPLICITLY TERMED AS "HARAM" CANNOT BE CALLED AS SUCH.
NOW WITH THT SAID NOWHERE in the Quran or Hadith do we find it written that it is HARAM to rape either ones own wife OR ones captive woman. It's that simple. ALL THE REST is just mostly red herrings.

Zack_Tiang said...

Samatar,

Why am I not surprised you'd try to turn it around on the bible?
And why am I not surprised you'd try and twist my words for your sake?

"So from the passage according to your criteria, this was definitely rape"

Was that my criteria? Let's read again.

"I would tend towards the conclusion that 1) the women did not consent (as it is the most likely/probable situation) and 2) they were raped, since rape is basically forced sex to satisfy the lust of the rapist."

1 - I certainly did not say 'definitely'. You did.

2 - my assumption for 1) assumes that the captive women were married to their captors (followed by sex) almost immediately after their capture (i.e. within days) (sorry if I failed to make this obvious)

3 - I also said 'rape is basically forced sex to satisfy the LUST of the rapist.
30 days of waiting to fulfill a man's lust?

So, no, it isn't according to my criteria and you are comparing apples and pineapples. It sounds the same, but in fact are quite distinct from one another.
On one side, the OT's allowed the men to marry their captives (and that must happen before any sexual intercourse)...
VERSUS
the Quran's allowing the men to have sex with the captive women, even without marriage (as you freely admitted) and that their husbands are still alive (as I've pointed out and you've yet to answer)


"hence from your standards, she definitely would not have consented to marrying a man who just killed her husband, brother, father, etc."

My criteria is as pointed out earlier...


"while other translations say because " she was married to you under compulsion". "

Which other translations are you talking about? The Muslim ones?

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/21-14.htm


"And the bible says that you cannot sell her as a slave because ( as some translations say) you "violated" her"

Now this is an interesting condition given by the bible.
'Violated' can cover a wider range of violations than just 'sexual' ones. As you've pointed out, even shaving the head of the woman can be considered humiliating for her, thus, she has already been violated.
So, if a man chose to marry her and found no delight in her, so regardless of whether they had sex or not, he shall let her go (almost a must even) and she must not to be mistreated or sold off as a slave.

Now, how about Islam?
Quran 4:24 - It is not lawful to have sex with married women, EXCEPT slaves (& captives).
Sahih Muslim, Vol 2, #3371 and Sahih al-Bukhari 4138, where the Muslim men performed al-azl (coitus interruptus - withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception)) so that they can later on sell the women.
Sahih Muslim, Vol 2, #3432 and Sunan of Abu Dawud, Vol 2, # 2150, where the Muslim men were allowed to have sex with the captured women, even in the presence of their husbands.

1 - The bible requires marriage before sex, whereas Islam, sex is allowed outside of marriage (i.e. adultery). The implication of which should mean that Islam allows adultery.

2 - The OT required that the men gives the captive women 30-days of mourning/grieving, before they are allowed to marry; Islam doesn't, they need not even bother to wait for the husbands of the captured women to be dead.

3 - Islam allows men to have sex with captive women and then sell them as slaves; whereas the bible has no such thing.



Now, can you stop being hypocritical and actually do as you demanded me to do?

"Notice, [SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3432 and SUNAN OF ABU DAWUD, VOLUME 2, # 2150] spoke nothing about WIDOWED married women... The husbands were still alive and even present.
How does consensual sex work here, Samatar?"

"How is having sex with a captured female and then selling her off for ransom a moral/ethical act?"

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Zack Thiang

Lets break the verse down for clarification.

Deutoronomy 21

" 10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."

So the war is over and all the men are killed. Lets say I am one of those men. I find a beautiful women among the group, and I choose her for marriage. It is important to note that the verse is silent on whether she consented or not. Now here is where it is critical, because christians in here like Search for truth, Simpletruth, and Billy have argued that why in the world would a women consent to be with the man who just killed her husband/brother/father. If you hold their position, then you will have to be consistent and hold the position that the women in the Old testament did not consent to the marriage. If you disagree with their position, then you cannot use that argument against the hadith. Now, moving along, After I marry the beautiful women of my choice, I humiliate her by having her shave her head. And we know how humiliating it would be for a women to shave her head. After all, the beauty of the women is partly due to her hair.

Continued

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Zack Thiang

Now, after she shaves her head, trims her nail, and removes her old clothes. I give her a month to grieve for her family before I have sex with her. Now here is the problem your facing. You said "The OT required that the men gives the captive women 30-days of mourning/grieving, before they are allowed to marry; Islam doesn't, they need not even bother to wait for the husbands of the captured women to be dead." You seem to imply that the women who were captured by the muslims would not
consent to having sex with the men immediately. But how can you say that she would want to have sex with him after a month. After all, he did just humiliate her by having her head shaved, he forced her into marriage, and literally killed her
relatives. You think that after a month, she would just forget it all and just die to have sex with the man. Because, if you are saying that they would not admit to it immediately, who are you to say that they would all agree to have sex after their grieving period. But the scripture does not say to wait until she consents, but after a waiting period, as if her
choice to sex does not matter. Now, te scripture stays silent as to whether the women consented or not. But if you can build a case for rape in the hadith when it is silent. The same case can be built against the Bible.

Continued

Samatar Mohamed said...

Now for my final point, I am not saying that the verse allowed rape, because there is not evidence to show whether the women consented to such an action. But, if the evidence you and the other christians have provided is sufficient enough to say that the prophet (pbuh) "probably" allowed and partook in the rape of captives. Then if we are going to be consistent with the evidence from the bible, then we should also say that God "probably" allowed rape in the bible.

You said "How is having sex with a captured female and then selling her off for ransom a moral/ethical act?"

How is capturing a female slave that you find attractive, forcing her to marry you, shaving her head as a means to "dishonor" her, and instead of waiting for her to consent to sex, you count down the clock until the month is over, so you can have sex with her a moral/ethical act.

Now that you want to play this game. Please take our two comments, and go to a few objective people you see who are not christian or muslim, and ask them if either or is unethical, or if both are unethical. See, when you take a snippet of the treatment of slaves in the bible and Quran/hadith, you can make anything look much worse, or in some cases, much better than it really is. You can even make hitler look good when you mention that he was against smoking, he helped drastically improve the economy, and he even had laws to protect animals from abuse. You see.

Zack_Tiang said...

Samatar,

Why are you so prejudice in your reasoning?

Why do you speak as though the bible allows marriage IMMEDIATELY after the women were captured?
It is 30-days BEFORE the men can marry the women. NOT 30-days BEFORE consummation. Please get your story straight.

The 30-days given for the women to grieve/mourn is a sign of respect and honor and even love & mercy; which goes a long way for any woman.

I agree with the others.. what women, whose husbands have just been killed, would be eager to have sex immediately (i.e. within hours, days) with their killers?
But God of the bible did not allow the Israelites to do that. They were to show respect to these women who had just lost their husbands in war to grieve and mourn in 30 days (and as I said, unlike Islam that doesn't even bother to wait for the husbands to be dead).

The point of all this is to make sure that the men's reasons for wanting to marry the women are not just for sex or lust. (unlike Islam, where Muhammad allowed men to exercise their lust just because they have been away from their wives and are sex-depraved. Really sad.)

And btw, the shaving of hair and putting aside her old clothes are not done to humiliate her. Shaving of the head is a customary sign of purification; Leviticus 14:8 and Numbers 8:7, and the putting away her old clothes were designed to signify the translation of the woman from her pagan and slave status to that of a wife among the covenant-people. This is, so far as possible, to lay aside everything belonging to her condition as a foreigner.
It is an act of assimilation into the new Jewish lifestyle as a proselyte; instead of being treated like a second-class citizen or sold off as slaves as I've quoted from the Islamic hadiths.


Samatar said, "But if you can build a case for rape in the hadith when it is silent. The same case can be built against the Bible."

Not at all, Samatar. The case for the bible is absolutely different from that of Islam's case, and I've made my case of that difference, which I guess you've ignored conveniently.

Samatar also said, "But, if the evidence you and the other christians have provided is sufficient enough to say that the prophet (pbuh) "probably" allowed and partook in the rape of captives."

If you want to speak of Christians in general, they have quoted other Islamic literatures that particularly had Muhammad "allowing and partaking in the rape of captives".
But, you conveniently brush those aside as 'weak' or 'not sahih' or 'unauthenticated' or 'unfiltered' by the respective collector of the hadith.


I said "How is having sex with a captured female and then selling her off for ransom a moral/ethical act?"

How convenient that you misrepresent the bible in order to avoid the obviously unethical act allowed in Islam.
As I've explained before, even if I were to agree with you that this particular act in the OT is not right, it doesn't diminish anything for me as a Christian, as I am of the New Testament and the New Testament never told me to continue or follow the acts/practices of the OT, except the ones it specifically mentions (plus there's the part about practically all of the OT practices being only applicable to Israelites).



Now, saying someone else is ugly doesn't make yours any less ugly.

How is having sex with a captured female and then selling her off for ransom a moral/ethical act?

Don't forget, this act was allowed by Muhammad, your prophet, and the Quran affirms Muhammad as having the best conduct for all to model after; i.e. his words are pure gold.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Zack Thiang

So according to you. In deutoronomy, the captives consented to the marriage, the act of shaving the captives head wasn't humiliating, after a month of grieving they all consented to having sexual relations with the men who killed their relatives, and they can live happily ever after. I must say, had the old testament said anything, you would still give it a pass. If the God of the Old testament even allowed the killing of women, children, and animals, you would still defend it. Oh wait, it seems he already did.

Samatar Mohamed said...

Zackthiang = willfully ignorant

Brigitte said...

@ samatar
Would you kindly answer my DIRECT QUESTIONS regarding your widow and daughter with DIRECT ANSWERS: "yes sounds fine to me, lovely idea", or "no i think it is a bit sick, frankly".

A voice in my head tells me that a killer showing mercy and compassion to his victim's widow (a REFORMED character) APOLOGISES for his crime and FINANCIALLY SUPPORTS her until she meets someone DECENT. He doesn't ask the broken soul for "sex for food". Now, how does that compare with the "teachings" muslim children are fed with? Should I start a new religion?

You are correct that one can also challenge the Bible on ethics. But, why is Christianity salvageable, while Islam isn't? This is because Jesus, whether one believes in God or doesn't (I don't), not only was NOT A CRIMINAL, but was actually a GIFTED teacher of ETHICS. He illustrated the Golden Rule with simple stories and one-liners that are as relevant and useful today as they were at the time.

Unlike the Bible, nothing in the Qur'an can be criticised. This is the only chance for something of no value whatsoever (except for research) to survive.

Brigitte said...

One more thing. If you cannot tell for sure whether the book you are reading is inspired by good or evil, but you are ready to switch off your brain and follow the programme to the letter as it orders you to, stop reading the damned book! Sorry for stating the obvious :)

Zack_Tiang said...

Samatar said, "If the God of the Old testament even allowed the killing of women, children, and animals, you would still defend it."

There are plenty of reasons for God's commands in the OT. But I am very certain you never considered them even though people have explained them to you before.

Samatar said, "So according to you."

It's really funny how you say it is, yet when I read, it isn't at all.

The act of shaving, I said, was not meant to humiliate them. It is an act of purification.
It would only be considered humiliating if the captives themselves did not approve of it.

And it is more possible and more probable for the captive women to consent to marriage in the bible's case, than for Islam.
30-days to grieve their lost one VERSUS husbands not being dead even and are still present.

You're not making your case any better, Samatar, so stop your immature ad hominem. You can't even quote my name accurately, even though it is spelled out perfectly and clearly in front of your eyes.
If your physical eyes can't even comprehend the clear words (and even spellings) that are plainly in front of you, how can you even trust your spiritual eyes to know what is the truth?

The plain truth is, Samatar, your spirit is dead and you have no relation with God, both YHWH of the bible and even your Allah.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Zack Tiang

Sorry about the name issue, I spelled it from memory. So, the women were not dishonored because they consented to the marriage. They weren't dishonored from having their head shaved as you claim ("The act of shaving, I said, was not meant to humiliate them. It is an act of purification."), they were not dishonored for the sexual relations after the month because they consented. So how on earth did the men dishonor the women as the passage clearly says " ...If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her." Since I mistook your position regarding if the prophet (pbuh) molested Aisha. Let me ask you, with regard to the hadiths on the captives, do you hold that there is evidence to prove 100% that according to the narration, rape took place. Do you hold that the narrations builds a case that it is probable that rape had occured, but not certain. Or do you hold that there is no evidence to show that rape was committed.

"The plain truth is, Samatar, your spirit is dead and you have no relation with God, both YHWH of the bible and even your Allah."

Now Zack Tiang, you do not even know me, so for you to say that my spirit is dead is just plain confusing. You don't know who I am, where I live, what I do, how I live my life, etc... So for you to say that is just wrong.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Samatar,

Said: "Now Zack Tiang, you do not even know me, so for you to say that my spirit is dead is just plain confusing. You don't know who I am, where I live, what I do, how I live my life, etc... So for you to say that is just wrong."




Remember Samatar you admitted that you're not sure if Satan is tricking you or if you are possessed.


By the way Samatar is your god delusional?

Zack_Tiang said...

Samatar asked, "So how on earth did the men dishonor the women..."

It's simple, by the simple fact that the men had married the women and then later on, divorced them (i.e. "let her go wherever she wishes" and "must not sell her or treat her as a slave").
In the OT, God has a very negative view on divorce.


Samatar asked, "Let me ask you, with regard to the hadiths on the captives, do you hold that there is evidence to prove 100% that according to the narration, rape took place."

I hold that it is highly probable that rape took place, particularly based on this passage I pointed out earlier...

FROM THE HADITH OF THE SUNAN OF ABU DAWUD, VOLUME 2, # 2150:

Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives IN THE PRESENCE of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Quran verse is 4:24].

(Also found in SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3432)


Just for the simple fact that the women's husbands WERE STILL ALIVE and even PRESENT.
I do not know how many times I have pointed this out, in spite of your ignoring it.

And I have good evidence that these men had done such acts out of lust and no other reason, also from one of the passages I quoted earlier.



Samatar said, "Now Zack Tiang, you do not even know me, so for you to say that my spirit is dead is just plain confusing. You don't know who I am, where I live, what I do, how I live my life, etc... So for you to say that is just wrong."

I need not see the physical to know the spiritual, Samatar.

John 3:5-8
(5) Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
(6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
(7) Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
(8) The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Have you been born of the Spirit, Samatar?
If you have not, your spirit is dead and you better find out how you can be born of the Spirit, for these are the words of Jesus Christ, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Mrs Poppy head said...

You know I've been having a little insommnia lately,but thanks to this thread i can easily slip off to sleep now.Normally threads like this get me really riled up but this one just didnt stop and got boring really quick! Samatar has some stamina(talk about Taqiyya!!!)The christians were just as bad. And the irony that you are discussing something from a millennia and a half ago - really, why should it have any bearing on anything today??? Ask yourself!!!Havent we evolved enough that we shouldnt be consulting or influenced by anything from those long ago days of sand and goats??? This rapist shouldnt even be following this stupid faith, cobbled together by an illiterate psychopath and nor should the christians be taking their patchwork religion of misogynist psychedelic ramblings by lunatics seriously at all..For the record I do think that the koran allows rape and is misogynistic by todays western standards and the bible is the same if not quite as blatant.